Obama to Give Jihadists the Ability to Order Airstrikes

Obama to Give Jihadists the Ability to Order Airstrikes

"Rebels" who pledged allegiance to ISIS to control American bombers in Syria

But he won't give the Kurds heavy weapons

"@sidarfezad: YPG'nin ağır silahlara ihtiyacı var. taga destek arkadaşlar #HeavyWeaponsForYPG pic.twitter.com/BvFhHqtkjT"
— em agır u rojén (@AlgunBirhat) February 11, 2015

The Obama administration is preparing to equip the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels with the ability to order U.S. air strikes despite the group’s admitted allegiance to the Islamic State.

Members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) will be provided with radios to call in strikes from American B-1B bombers as well as pickup trucks with mounted machine guns as the president puts the final touches on plans to train as many as 3,000 rebels in Jordan and Turkey by the end of 2015.

“Negotiations have been concluded and an agreement text will be signed with the US regarding the training of the Free Syrian Army in the coming period,” said Turkish Foreign Ministry Spokesman Tanju Bilgic.

The planes will reportedly use similar munitions to those seen in Afghanistan, targeting anything from small vehicles to tanks with 500 and 2,000-pound guided bombs.

Aside from the Toyota Hi-Lux trucks, multiple groups of rebels will also be given mortars and possibly antitank weapons as well. The FSA has already been given US Tow missle a very high priced and very accurate anti tank missle system. These have already fallen iiinto ISIS #Daeshbag hands before. So we can expect it to happen again. 

A senior military official speaking with the Wall Street Journal stated that the decision would likely emulate recent bombing campaigns against the Islamic State in Iraq.

“The way we envision it, it would be very similar to Kobani,” the source said.

Ludicrously refuting previous statements by claiming not to be at war with the Syrian government, U.S. officials alleged that air strikes would likely not be ordered against the Syrian army. But I think this is the foot in the door the West has been looking for to attack the Syrian government. Turkey wants that to happen now....  even before ISIS. But the US and most European countries want to get rid of ISIL before they even think about the Syrian government, at least that's what they tell us.

Despite the Obama administration’s claims, countless intelligence and military officials have stated that the “moderate” rebels are essentially non-existent, with well over 90 percent being with terrorist groups or aligned in ideology.

Just last September, a commander with the FSA admitted to fighting alongside several terrorist organizations in the region including the Islamic State.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun,” Bassel Idriss, commander of an FSA-run rebel brigade, said. “Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.”

Jamal Maarouf, the leader of the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), also told reporters last April that his fighters regularly worked with Al Qaeda and Al-Nusra as well.

During the same time period it was reported that “several factions within the FSA, including Ahl Al Athar, Ibin al-Qa’im,” decided to hand their weapons over to the Islamic State before pledging their allegiance to the group.

An Islamic State fighter speaking with Al-Jazeera in 2013 revealed that the FSA regularly sold its weapons to them shortly after they would receive shipments from the U.S.

“We are buying weapons from the FSA,” Abu Atheer said. “We bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti tank weapons. We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA.”

Obama’s rebels and the Islamic State even went as far as to sign a non-aggression pact with one another in order to rally against the Assad government in late 2014.

#HeavyWeaponsForYPG pic.twitter.com/h8yaP8f6JI
— Resul Diri (@rdiri01) February 11, 2015

In fact, with thousands of rebels openly defecting and joining ranks with the Islamic State, President Obama was forced to brazenly repeal sections of U.S. law that banned the arming of known terrorist groups in order to keep weapons flowing.

Obama’s actions spurred a major backlash within the military at the end of 2013, resulting in numerous U.S. troops taking to social media to post photos of themselves holding up signs stating that they would not fight on the same side as terrorists in Syria.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz presciently warned in 2013 that President Obama was quickly turning the United States into Al Qaeda’s air force as the situation in Syria continued to intensify.

“We should be focused on defending the United States of America,” Cruz said. “That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”

Evan F. Kohlmann, a terrorism researcher and a consultant

The Real Online Terrorist Threat
Evan F. Kohlmann
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006

Article preview: first 500 of 3,128 words total.

Summary: Fears of a "digital Pearl Harbor" -- a cyberattack against critical infrastructure -- have so preoccupied Western governments that they have neglected to recognize that terrorists actually use the Internet as a tool for organizing, recruiting, and fundraising. Their online activities offer a window onto their methods, ideas, and plans.

Evan F. Kohlmann, a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation, is the author of "Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network." He runs the Web site www.globalterroralert.com.

WORLD OF WARCRAFT

The United States is gradually losing the online war against terrorists. Rather than aggressively pursuing its enemies, the U.S. government has adopted a largely defensive strategy, the centerpiece of which is an electronic Maginot Line that supposedly protects critical infrastructure (for example, the computer systems run by agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration) against online attacks. In the meantime, terrorists and their sympathizers, unhindered by bureaucratic inertia and unchallenged by Western governments, have reorganized their operations to take advantage of the Internet's more prosaic properties.

The U.S. government is mishandling the growing threat because it misunderstands terrorists. For more than a decade, a host of pundits and supposed experts have traded in doom-and-gloom predictions that cyberterrorists would wreak havoc on the Internet -- or, worse, use computer networks to do damage in the offline world (for instance, by hijacking systems that control the water and power utilities of major metropolitan areas). Such warnings were bolstered by the occasional acts of terrorist groups such as the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has staged dramatic but ineffectual cyberattacks, such as its hacking into the Indian army's Web site in 2000. Although such incidents had only symbolic impact, they scared technophobic Western policymakers. Fearful of a digital Pearl Harbor, governments embarked on a frantic campaign aimed at "locking doors." As the former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke explained, Washington's strategy has been simple: keep terrorists from breaching sensitive government networks.

In truth, although catastrophic computer attacks are not entirely inconceivable, the prospect that militants will be able to execute them anytime soon has been overblown. Fears of such science-fiction scenarios, moreover, have led policymakers to overlook the fact that terrorists currently use the Internet as a cheap and efficient way of communicating and organizing. These militants are now dedicated to waging an innovative, low-intensity military campaign against the United States. Jihadists are typically organized in small, widely dispersed units and coordinate their activities online, obviating the need for a central command. Al Qaeda and similar groups rely on the Internet to contact potential recruits and donors, sway public opinion, instruct would-be terrorists, pool tactics and knowledge, and organize attacks. The RAND Corporation's David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla have called this phenomenon "netwar," which they define as a form of conflict marked by the use of "network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies." In many ways, such groups use the Internet in the same way that peaceful political organizations do; what makes terrorists' activity threatening is their intent.

To counter terrorists, the U.S. government must learn how to monitor their activity online, in the same way that it keeps tabs on terrorists in the real world. Doing so will require a realignment of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, which lag behind terrorist organizations in adopting information technologies. At present, unfortunately, senior counterterrorism officials refuse even to pay lip service to the need for such reforms. That must change -- and fast.

V FOR VIDEO

One of the most ...

End of preview: first 500 of 3,128 words total.

Click here for post

A US group who wants to Ban Islam in the U.S., Britain, and Australia…

The group currently enjoys tax exempt status. This makes me very mad and I will be working to take away thier tax exempt status. I have contacted various government agencies and will be working with media organizations to stop this group.

The wrong way to fight Terrorism

Recently I had the unfortunate opportunity to stumble across a group of people who think they are fighting terrorism, yet they are doing all the wrong things. In reality their actions will create more militants and feed terrorists with a new influx of anti-western Jihadist.

While researching Wahhabism, I had stumbled on the group’s web site and I joined the forum. As you know I am always happy to help a group fighting terrorism. But then I started to read the various topics and posts. I posted some informative information and tried to bring a little education on tactics and realities. I was amazed when the many top level members and moderators started to say I was wrong and they stated how Islam must be banned.

Well I am not one to back down from a fight. So I kept my cool and focused on exposing and countering the lies these people were trying to use. They would quote Jihadist translations of the Quran but would not even consider the realities that I had proposed. They would attack the Quran and Muslims by assuming that all Muslims are radical.

They had many posts/topics on their Forum Website that disturbed me.

Here are some of the topics in their forum:

"Cult Not Religion" Here they state that Islam is not a religion.

"Whereis the moderate Muslim majority?" Here they proposed that there are no moderate Muslims.

"Is Islam A Religion???"

“Strategy Meeting To Ban Islam in America"

"Should The Constitution Be Amended To Allow Banning Islam?" Here if you say no they would attack you with post after post of Jihadist quotes.

"Muslims in the U.S."

"View Banned Sudan Documentary"

"re sheik Obama"

"Islam's Sole Prophet"

“Dear Muslim Man Complaint Box:”

“Schools Give Muslims Preferential Treatment, More of What We Already Know....and So it Gets Worse”

“koran flusher support rally”

“Clinton-Bush Enable Saudi Mind Control, A CLEAR WARNING!”

They are backing a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The proposed amendment would ban Islam by classifying it as not a religion, and therefore not protected by the constitution.

They propose to close all Mosques and deport all Muslims. I asked them “how do you propose to deport all Muslims?” also I stated “if you ban Islam in the U.S. don’t you think it will create more radicals?”

Here was one of my responses to their proposal to back the proposed amendment to Ban Islam in the U.S.

“So if I understand this correctly the Amendment wishes to ban the religion of Islam in the US?”

“So am I supposed to believe if this is Amendment is passed approx. five (5) Million Muslims who are presently in the USA Legally will just stop being Muslims? 5 million Muslims lol the ACLU will love that. They will make a ton of money and overturn any such Amendment. Ask Auntie Hillary she is a Lawyer she knows.”

“Sounds like a logistical nightmare. What about the 15 % African American Black Muslims? Others are various other races including Asians. Many of the Iranian and other Middle Eastern and western European are refugees (i.e., people who fled Extremist areas because of their more moderate views.) Many of the refugees helped America. Recent estimates state that, if we leave Iraq fast and soon, there will be approximately 35,000 - 75,000 Muslims Allies that the US Government will give sanctuary.”

”United States: Muslim Population circa 2000 Cool map at link.”
“Because the U. S. Census does not collect information on religious affiliation of residents in the nation, there are no exact figures on the number of Muslims in the country. According to a national poll conducted in 2001, known as the American Religious Identity Survey, approximately 1,104,000 adult Muslims reside in the United States. National Muslim organizations put the total number of all Muslims in the nation at about seven million, based on a survey that determined that two million Muslims regularly attend weekly Friday prayer services, and stipulated that the majority of Muslims do not attend such services. The 2000 Britannica Book of the Year estimate for 2000 states the number as 4,132,000. Whatever the exact number, the Muslim population in North America is characterized by its diversity. Some 80 nations are represented in the mosque communities of the United States, including a variety of traditions, practices, doctrines, and beliefs. Approximately 24 percent of American Muslims are African Americans according to the American Muslim Council’s Zogby poll conducted in 2000.”

“It reminds me of Hitler saying we have to ban the Jews.”

“Sorry I am not a politician. I am a Tactician. I have several posts that show who to target.”

“If I walk down an ally and suddenly 5 guys want to fight or kill me. What do I do? I look for the leader. I take him out first. The others normally will back down after that. If not it is still easier to kick rest of their butts after their leader is lying on the ground.”

One Topic on the forum asks members to post horror stories about Islam.

The forum is publicly viewable, and that makes me think these idiots will be creating more radicals/extremists.

So how could this happen? Well I can understand in many ways, how these people ended up on the wrong path, and why they are going in the wrong direction.

The group on the surface looks professional. Their web sites look credible, the people there know many of the quotes that the Jihadist use and some of the founders have written books, which seem to be professional.

The reality is much scarier. Some of the founders (one in particular) pose as experts. But the only expertise they or the followers seem to have is quoting Jihadist quotes/translations of the Quran. The one founder has written many books and has POSED as an expert on many television stations. This man however is NOT an expert. He appears to have absolutely no knowledge of military tactics, capabilities, or limitations. These people’s knowledge of Jihadist quotes could be used much better to help create “bots” that can roam the web and take down Jihadist web sites. But I feel the group is being used by the one founder who has written his hate books. He has links to various web sites all seem to be linked in someway and all are racist and hateful.

If you wish to help take down this group of Idiots and Islamaphobics. Contact me I will give you the web sites and suggestions on how you can help.

Where are we fighting al-Qaeda?

America is at war with al Qaeda — on that surely we can agree — and we know that al Qaeda has bases in Pakistan. In fact, it is probable that Osama bin Laden resides at one of those bases. But we can’t fight al Qaeda in Pakistan because Pakistan is an ally, and America does not violate the territorial integrity of its allies.

Al Qaeda is active in Gaza, according to Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence. Al Qaeda supports Hamas which has just waged a bloody — and successful — civil war against Fatah, its Palestinian rival. But we’re not about to invade Gaza in pursuit of al Qaeda. Even Israel, which withdrew from Gaza two years ago, is not eager to return there. In Lebanon, Fatah al-Islam, which is fighting the Lebanese government, is believed to be linked to al Qaeda. But the last time U.S. troops were in Lebanon, they were attacked by suicide bombers dispatched by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization directed by the regime in Tehran. There is no way the U.S. is going to send troops into Lebanon again.

Groups linked to al Qaeda are in Somalia. We have supported Ethiopian troops fighting there. But a serious effort by Americans against al Qaeda in Somalia seems unlikely.Al Qaeda cells operate in Europe. But it is problematic for American operatives to kill or capture terrorists there: To do so sparks allegations from the “human rights community” and the media about violations of international law, torture and secret prisons. Also, as has happened in Italy, it can lead to criminal prosecutions of Americans thought to be involved. So America’s ability to fight al Qaeda in Europe is limited.

There are probably al Qaeda cells in the U.S. too. One hopes the FBI is monitoring them. But until the members of these cells commit crimes, there is not much that can be done. On what basis could Mohammed Atta, ringmaster of the 9/11/01 hijackers, have been arrested on 9/10/01? What’s more, some judges and legal activists are now insisting that even combatants illegally in the U.S. are entitled to all the rights enjoyed by American citizens. If this view prevails, fighting al Qaeda within the U.S. will become even harder.

Read More Here

For Dollars or for Jihad?

Dollars or Jihad?
Iraqis are getting paid between $100 and $200 (250,000 Iraqi dollars) each attack weather lobbing a grenade in the green zone (IZ), killing an Iraqi police officer, or Iraqi civilians.

Here is a portion of an insurgent being interogated:

Officer: were you doing these killings for Jihad?
Criminal: yes Sir.
Officer: for Jihad or for money?
Criminal: for both Sir.
Officer: how could Jihad be paid for!!
Criminal: (no answer)
Officer: you're Muslim?
Criminal: yes
Officer: on ID card, huh?
Criminal: yes
Officer: do you pray or go to the mosque?
Criminal: no
Officer: do you drink?
Criminal: yes Sir.
Officer: so you don't pray and you don't go to the mosque and you drink and you kill for money and after all this you call your evil doings Jihad?!!! And you call your group the "Islamic Army"!!
Criminal: (no answer again)
Officer: so, tell me about those 9 policemen. Where were they coming from and where were they heading?
Criminal: coming from 'Msayab and heading to Hilla
Officer: so they weren't coming from Tel Aviv? (from the officer's tone, obviously mocking the conspiracy theorists).
Criminal: no Sir, they were Iraqis.
Officer: THEN WHY DID YOU KILL THEM!!?

Anti Cyber Terror Training - Michael Yon - Anti Terror Activist Groups

By Ian Bach April 4, 2007

I thought I would touch a little on the need for government funding in online and other Media News sources. Michael Yon metions the need for on the ground reporting of his type (an ethical nature). He also dicusses some of the online possibly private or possibly DOD influences that have remarked on his reporting. I read his views about the organization. I feel weather or not it is a private or DOD endeavor it does show the need for further education of those fighting the battle against terror propaganda. One thing to remember is his photograph that made him famous [the photo was of a US soldier helping an Iraqi child who had been a target of a sucide bomber or IED] was used in a lot of unethical ways and also used by terror propaganda as a reason the coalation forces should leave Iraq.

Sometimes it is hard to know what to publish as it can often be used by a terrorist wishing to coax public opinion to their will. Its is good to know there is people watching what is said and how, but without proper training most of these online anti-terror networks fail in some respect. They should also learn that reporting on positive changes is as inportant if not more than just taking down terror propaganda and information used by terrorists. I searched for a few weeks to find a reliable well informed and well constructed etity to train myself in online counterterrorism. But found very little that focused in this specific area. There are some good FBI and DoHS groups that train citizens on the ground to spot persons who apprear to be checking out potential targets within the US, but I found nothing on training to fight online terror propaganda until more recelty (yet much of the info and sites/groups focus only o n shutting down bad sites and not creating good web sites). Which in the least is scary. If you have read any of my links on terrorists tactics and couterterrorism you will see that propaganda/Media is a large part of the terror machine. It has been used by Al Qaeda and other terror groups more and more lately and some of it has become very sublime in many cases. Recently while I was looking for terrorists web propaganda to shut down, I found a few sites that at first looked to be respectable and for a good cause (we all remember the charitable organizations that were actualy terror fronts to help support Bin Laden and other terrorists - I hope we remember these?). But investigate further and you find terrorist qoutes and bad pictures and other text that is radical or extremist in nature. The next few years, I beleive we will see governments around the world pay more and clearer attention and funding to fight online terrorists. Online terrorists activities include bankscams, ID theft, hacking of government web sites, and terrorists posting of video and text meant to twists the publics knowledge/perception. - Ian Bach

Michael Yons latest Dispatch focuses on the need for our military to assist reporters in Iraq.

"Who suffers? Firstly, we are losing the war in part because we are losing public support for it. We are losing public support for it in part because there are so few reports that demonstrate enough progress being made and enough reasons to continue to fight until Iraqis are able to go it alone. Secondly, the soldiers suffer because their stories are not being told. Fox News, which reaches millions, just turned down an embed simply because they don’t want their cameras and computers stolen, and they need to actually work when they aren’t guarding their gear. Unlike yours truly, Fox News has deadlines to meet."

Here is a section of an Newsweek Article regarding hacking on both sides of the cyberwar:

Virtual Jihad

Radical Islamic Web sites are encouraging their supporters to wage holy war online. Their exhortations underscore U.S. vulnerability to cyberterror

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Newsweek

Updated: 9:40 a.m. PT Feb 10, 2005

"Almost every [Islamic extremist] Web site has a section on how to do jihad over the Internet," says Rita Katz, the head of the SITE Institute, a group that closely monitors Islamic Web sites. The postings, say Katz, advise would-be holy warriors: "If you can't do Jihad physically, do it on the Internet."

Here is some info on global terrorism and Al Qaeda influences in Saudi Arabia, as reported By Mahan Abedin:

(Click here for full Text)

"Dr. Saad al-Faqih heads the Saudi opposition group, Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA), and is a widely acknowledged expert on al-Qaeda. Terrorism Monitor Editor Mahan Abedin conducted this interview December 12, 2005 in London."

"Mahan Abedin: What is the latest information on terrorism in Saudi Arabia?"

"Saad al-Faqih: The latest general trend is that the jihadis have abandoned their previous tactics of targeting Westerners and the security forces. The jihadis are now focusing all their attention on the royal family. Two factors have driven this change. Firstly, the jihadis had previously avoided targeting the royals for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities. But now they believe that the prevailing opinion in Saudi Arabia-and probably in the wider Muslim world-is that the royal family is infidel and deserves harsh treatment. Secondly, the jihadis have finally overcome their fear of a secular takeover in the event of the sudden downfall of the House of Saud. Somebody told me that in the late 1990s bin Laden used to say that if the House of Saud is removed, the country will fall into the hands of secular forces. But now al-Qaeda believes that the regime is behaving far worse than a would-be secular system, because it is gradually destroying Islam under the banner of a false Islam. Al-Qaeda has reached the conclusion that the sudden collapse of the regime will either invite foreign interference or chaos. Both scenarios are now favored by the jihadis, who have learned great lessons in the Iraq theater over the past 33 months. In fact the jihadis would welcome an American invasion, knowing full well that it will provide a massive recruitment opportunity for them and hence they will be the ultimate winners, as they think they are proving to be in Iraq."

"MA: How has the political transition (i.e. death of King Fahd) affected the struggle between the regime and al-Qaeda?"

"SF: The transition has little to do with al-Qaeda; in fact al-Qaeda is not in the least bit interested in these developments. The only way al-Qaeda would become interested is if a very serious and open dispute between the leading royals broke out. But this has not happened, not yet anyways. Moreover, there is no division in the regime when it comes to al-Qaeda; all the top figures of the regime, namely Abdullah, Sultan and Nayef, are determined to eradicate al-Qaeda. They are also in favor of maintaining the regime’s dependence on America. "

"MA: But presumably al-Qaeda is monitoring developments inside the regime very closely and the decision on the timing of any assassination attempt against a leading figure would surely be determined by .........."